Raoul's Monday Post

Usually Mr. Shapiro, I agree with your arguments; however, today I strongly disagree. You brought up two strongly related arguments, that you claimed to be fact. The first, is that the answers to the great existential questions, of  "Why we are here?" and "How did we get here?" will never be answered because the universe is infinite. You claim that because the universe is infinite that we will never understand it, I can not deny that claim; however, I do know that logical conclusions can be drawn from infinity. Scientist and mathematicians conclude logical and reasonable facts from infinity; therefore, you can not say that because the universe is infinite we will never be able to draw a conclusion about its origin. I know we are no where near understanding the universe and even further from explaining it. In fact, I believe that the human race might never understand the universe, during its existence. But I say that claiming that we will never understand the universe because it is infinite, is drawing a wall that is even more comforting than that of current science. Now your other claim is that the world of science and logic is invalid. You claim that 2+2=5 is just as valid as 2+2=4. But I say no. You say "that addition was made by man". I can not disagree with that. However, if two dinosaurs (I'm using this example because it is pre-man) were to meet two other dinosaurs at a dinosaur party there would be a group of four dinosaurs at this dinosaur party. (If you are still reading this please leave me a comment about my dinosaur party :)). You can not say there were five dinosaurs. Only if you refuse the   first law of classical thought can you claim that there were five dinosaurs. If you can claim that something can not be defined as itself, that something can not be identified, that A is not A, that A does not equal A then I will except you claim that 2+2=5 but until then I will reject it. Now you argue that I am leaning against a wall, and you Mr. Shapiro claim that the wall can be broken. I ask you  "Can there be a true wall? Can there be a permanent wall? Can there be a fact? Are there any absolutes?". I believe yes. Your argument that the wall of religion was nocked over is valid; however, religion was a rabbit hole for us to fall through in order to become a society, but in fact it was temporary. Just because there was one layer to the shell of knowldge does not mean that the layers can be shed to infinity. I believe in a finite answer.